Medical marijuana - why does it have to be smoked? Can't the active ingredients be put in a capsule or nasal spray?

Taxes will never be derived from marijuana. It is a weed anybody can successfully grow anywhere and they will (even more so than it is done today) if it is legalized or decriminalized .

I've seen scans of brains of different addict types, not promising at all.

If we decriminalized all drugs I think it would be fair for employers to be allowed to drug test or (preferably) brain scan employees to make sure they are fit to do their jobs, I see no invasion of privacy in it.

Gold Member

Prohibition is expensive and self-defeating: see how well it worked in the 1920s?

Both tobacco and liquor can be "homegrown", but most people prefer the quality and convenience of buying professionally made product.

THC has already been synthesized: it's called Marinol. It's prescribed to people who suffer nausea or lack of appetite. If it sufficed, there'd be no need to break existing laws for medical marijuana "buyers clubs". For some reason, the police would rather be seen carting sick and dying people to jail instead of turning a blind eye. Undoubtedly they feel that these people are questioning their authority in a provocative manner.

But THC is not physically addictive, like nicotine, caffeine or alcohol, all of which are perfectly legal for adults to purchase and consume.

Anyone interested in "limited government" should be the first to support a total rethinking of our drug policies, but so very few do. Freedom and personal responsibility are merely empty catch-phrases, devoid of meaning in any concrete, immediate sense.

As for drug screenings: that's between an employer and their employees, but "brain scans"? Having an on-site MRI seems a little expensive to me.

Prohibition is expensive and self-defeating: see how well it worked in the 1920s?

Both tobacco and liquor can be "homegrown", but most people prefer the quality and convenience of buying professionally made product.

THC has already been synthesized: it's called Marinol. It's prescribed to people who suffer nausea or lack of appetite. If it sufficed, there'd be no need to break existing laws for medical marijuana "buyers clubs". For some reason, the police would rather be seen carting sick and dying people to jail instead of turning a blind eye. Undoubtedly they feel that these people are questioning their authority in a provocative manner.

But THC is not physically addictive, like nicotine, caffeine or alcohol, all of which are perfectly legal for adults to purchase and consume.

Anyone interested in "limited government" should be the first to support a total rethinking of our drug policies, but so very few do. Freedom and personal responsibility are merely empty catch-phrases, devoid of meaning in any concrete, immediate sense.

As for drug screenings: that's between an employer and their employees, but "brain scans"? Having an on-site MRI seems a little expensive to me.

Click to expand...

I've brewed beer and grown pot, guess which was easier and which gave better returns on investment.

The scans I'm talking about aren't MRI but I can't remember the name of them. Here are some examples:

Gold Member

Taxes will never be derived from marijuana. It is a weed anybody can successfully grow anywhere and they will (even more so than it is done today) if it is legalized or decriminalized .
.

Click to expand...

strange that the Netherlands derives 700 million US dollars a year from taxes on the 3.2 billion dollars in marijuana sales during an average year.

Not bad for a country with 14 million people.

It is not a weed that can successfully be grown anywhere. Starting a grow operation is not a viability in an apartment in a city.

-beer can be brewed at home, but people still buy beer.
-you can make iced tea or lemonade at home, yet people still buy Snapple or Arizona iced tea or Lemonade.
-you can grow tobacco in your yard but people choose to buy cigarettes.
-you can slaughter your own cow for meat, or raise your own chickens for eggs, yet people still go to mcdonalds for burgers and to a diner for an omelette

it is about quality and convenience.

and the taxes on marijuana will pale in comparison to what comes along with its decriminalization...

Industrial Hemp.

the benefits of which not only will be tons of new tax revenue, but a new cash crop for farmers, not to mention the protection of forests, and the growth in new machinery to harvest it.

Gold Member

Prohibition is expensive and self-defeating: see how well it worked in the 1920s?

Both tobacco and liquor can be "homegrown", but most people prefer the quality and convenience of buying professionally made product.

THC has already been synthesized: it's called Marinol. It's prescribed to people who suffer nausea or lack of appetite. If it sufficed, there'd be no need to break existing laws for medical marijuana "buyers clubs". For some reason, the police would rather be seen carting sick and dying people to jail instead of turning a blind eye. Undoubtedly they feel that these people are questioning their authority in a provocative manner.

But THC is not physically addictive, like nicotine, caffeine or alcohol, all of which are perfectly legal for adults to purchase and consume.

Anyone interested in "limited government" should be the first to support a total rethinking of our drug policies, but so very few do. Freedom and personal responsibility are merely empty catch-phrases, devoid of meaning in any concrete, immediate sense.

As for drug screenings: that's between an employer and their employees, but "brain scans"? Having an on-site MRI seems a little expensive to me.

Click to expand...

+1

( except for the part about employees not being tested, where it relates to public safety, such as pilots, machine operators etc.)

Gold Member

Because of real concerns about neural degeneration caused by HIV (I've been poz for 25+ years), I'm more familiar with the types of neural scans and imagery than many laymen, though I'm hardly an expert on the subject. I've been subjected to numerous CAT scans and MRIs over the years and have consulted with several neurologists in Boston and New York over the last dozen or so years. As I'm aware of the limitations of the technologies used and the inevitable subjectivity is interpreting the results, I clicked on the link you provided to see if there was something I wasn't aware of (a distinct possibility: again, I'm hardly an expert, just an informed and involved patient).

I read the specific page linked, then tooled around a bit, and, frankly, was highly skeptical of not only what was being shown but how such imagery could be interpreted. I was also highly dubious of his claims about aggression and violence in boys and wondered how this imaging device could possibly help with any of that, but I stopped when I found Dr Amen's "Natural Standard Herb & Supplement Database", and smelled more than a whiff of Snake Oil.

A quick search pulled up this enlightening article on Quackwatch, written by an MD. It's worth a careful read, as it decrys both the technology as well as the reasoning behind the interpretations Dr Amen offers, and mentions that the American Psychiatric Association is skeptical, as well.

I'm more likely to side with the APA than images of blood flow in the brain and the intrepretations of these images by a man with some odd ideas. And I'd be the first to say that subjecting a professional airline pilot to such dangerous scans of dubious medical value would be unwise.

Of course, this has nothing to do with legalizing and/or decriminalizing drugs at all.

Gold Member

( except for the part about employees not being tested, where it relates to public safety, such as pilots, machine operators etc.)

Click to expand...

Nowhere did I say anything about being opposed to employees being tested: it's a fact of life down here in Florida, where nearly every job required one before being considered for employment. I did draw the line at one company which required me to pay for my own test: I have never considered working anywhere where the application process would cost me money, and never will.

What I questioned was having an on-site "brain scan", and followed that up with further details once I read about Dr Amen's quackery. If the best neurologist/HIV specialist in NYC admits that interpreting MRIs is "ultimately subjective" (as he did in my case in 2003), I'm not going to put anyone's professional career in peril over Dr Amen's unfounded and unsupported claims.

Gold Member

decriminalizing it holds a better idea. If you follow headlines from Mexico, you know people down south are murdering people over turf and trade. The death toll is large and not too pretty. This would all vanish if people could grow their own. Prohibition creates a void where criminal gangs enter in.

Gold Member

Medical marijuana - why does it have to be smoked? Can't the active ingredients be put in a capsule or nasal spray?

Click to expand...

The health benefits of Marijuana are not confined to THC, in fact THC is just the part of it that was isolated by scientists that gets you "high". The health benefits of smoking Mary Jane come from nature itself. The entire bud (besides the stems and seeds) must be smoked to get the actual benefits of the plant.

Marijuana is nurtured by the sun and moon just like we are, and is our friend just like the dog is.

I am baffled by this putative distinction. What is "legalization" if not a synonym (and arguably a confused one) for "decriminalization"? Criminal laws say what you can't do, not what you can do, except as an exception to a prohibition elsewhere in the law. So far as I can see, there is no such thing as "legalizing" any activity apart from repealing or restricting some law that prohibits it -- and that is just decriminalization.

I am baffled by this putative distinction. What is "legalization" if not a synonym (and arguably a confused one) for "decriminalization"? Criminal laws say what you can't do, not what you can do, except as an exception to a prohibition elsewhere in the law. So far as I can see, there is no such thing as "legalizing" any activity apart from repealing or restricting some law that prohibits it -- and that is just decriminalization.

Hippie!

Click to expand...

Its about perception. Why should anyone be made a{or be seen as a} criminal in society's eyes for smoking something that grows all over our planet?

Gold Member

Marijuana is nurtured by the sun and moon just like we are, and is our friend just like the dog is.

Click to expand...

Besides, on a very basic level I imagine the simple pleasure found in a lazy evening with some pals, a few beers and a 'B' movie - typically resulting in the formulation of comprehensive solutions to the world's problems, followed by enlightenment and finally a certain bemused yet wistful realisation that women really do not understand us, might lack a certain caché were nasal sprays substituted for the more ... traditional 'delivery' method.

In other words, there are occasions where a smoky room filled with pungent odours and a casual disregard for those mere mortals - who simply don't 'get it', are an absolute necessity.

Then again, I may just be having a Kerouac moment, or perhaps I simply lack imagination ...

I did'nt know shit about Kerouac when i smoked my first joint in 74. I was 12. I did read 'On the road', The Dharma Bums,Dr.sax and another about him slumming in mexico city that i can't recall the title of......in my early 20's. I was transformed into a LIBTARD overnight.

Gold Member

Its about perception. Why should anyone be made a{or be seen as a} criminal in society's eyes for smoking something that grows all over our planet?

Click to expand...

No, it's not about perception -- at least, my question wasn't. Spiker and ZOS were using the two terms as if there were a substantive distinction between legalizing marijuana and decriminalizing it. I am asking what this distinction is. If there is none, then it is senseless to say "legalize, or at least decriminalize" (Spiker) or "decriminalizing is a better idea" (ZOS).

The legal medicine office of Florida, has analyzed last year 168000 decease: 989 were caused by heroin and metanfetamin, while anti-pain (is this a right translation?) like Vicodin and OxyContin has caused 2.328; anti-depressive , like Valium and Xanax, 743. Alcol was the most common substance, founded in 4.179 body, and causing 466 deceases, less than cocaine (843) but more than anfetamine (25) and marijuana (zero).

As of today, there is no study that demonstrate permanent brain damage to come from marijuana. A lot of medical uses for marijuana are possible, maybe too much for medical industries (the aspirin is, compared, an atomic bomb for your body). Personally, i'm disgusted. At least, with 40 euros or less i can make a trip for Netherland, but i still find it disturbing.

Gold Member

"Legalization is the removing of prohibitions or laws against something that is currently illegal.
..
Decriminalization is the reduction or ending of criminal penalties for certain acts. Decriminalized acts are no longer crimes, but they may still be the subject of regulation."

Gold Member

Thanks, _avg_: I was unaware of this way of interpreting the distinction. According to it, one would have to say, for instance, that the manufacture, sale, and consumption of alcoholic drinks were decriminalized in the US when the Eighteenth Amendment was repealed, but not legalized, because those activities are still restricted by law and still prohibited in some localities.